Comments on: Pete Hoekstra, Interviewed by Bill Bennett, agrees: Journos to Jail

By: kln;klnsca

kln;klnsca — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:43:25 +0000

if the leak exposes something illegal, i assume exposing it is protected. does this mean that if they prosecute the reporter of the nsa warrantless surveillance (i think it was risen), the court will be forced to rule on the legality of the nsa program? i have looked at the arguments, and the justifications and all, and there is no way in hell that the nsa program is constitutional. its blatant. if so, i hope they do prosecute risen (or whomever it was), cause as long as the republicans control congress no investigation will go anywhere.

By: John Minehan

John Minehan — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 18:16:41 +0000

The crux of modern free speech jurisprudence was stated by Justice Holmes in a case decided during World War I: “No one has the right to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.”

Where American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are “in harm’s way” there is absolutely no right to breach security regulations or to knowingly publish classified information.

The question becomes more difficult where the risk to troops is less clear and the classified information may relate to violations of United States Law or binding treaty obligations or international law. However, simply because the information is classified, it is very difficult to tell if American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines ARE actually put a risk by such a release.

Therefore, I have no sympathy for anyone who would release such information sua sponte, the (in my opinion) poorly decided and unreasoned Pentagon Papers case from 1971 not to the contrary.

Where something suspect is discovered the moral obligation on the part of the media is to go to the government and confront those responsible. If things are changed, there is no issue. Where things remain the same and there is greater assurance that something is amiss, THAT (rather than the classified information) becomes the story.

However, this is simply one man’s opinion.

By: SL Aronovitz

SL Aronovitz — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 12:38:51 +0000

If Al Qaeda is as sophisticated as Mr. Bennett claims, then they likely ALREADY know they are being spied upon by others. US intelligence agencies spy on everyone. It’s not a state secret to say that Al Qaeda is being watched or that prison camps exist in other countries. It’s not as if Al Qaeda is being given information that it doesn’t already have or could figure out on their own by rubbing two brain cells together.

Mr. Bennett thinks that Arabs/Moslems are stupid and can’t operate without the aid of American journalists.

By: darth zinn

darth zinn — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:54:55 +0000

No I think Tom nailed it when he said that China’s killing of Falun Gong members should be exposed despite the state claiming national security
And he nailed it when he said that Germany’s killing of Jews should have been exposed for what it was even though Hitler claimed national interest.
Tom is a ninja remember?

By: StevieG

StevieG — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:39:18 +0000

Kudos to Tom for his call, but he missed the point of Bennett’s attack — the right to disclose “national security secrets during a time of war” is the most basic form of journalism if those “national security secrets” are illegal, and the legality of renditions or the nsa wiretapping is clearly illegal to everyone but King George & His Court… Hey Bill, I know you like to gamble a little, I’ll bet you more Republicans go to jail over this war than journalists, and you already have a 1-0 lead…